Caro v. Marsh USA, Inc.
Citation | 956 N.Y.S.2d 575,101 A.D.3d 1068,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 09021 |
Parties | Olga CARO, appellant, v. MARSH USA, INC., et al., respondents. |
Decision Date | 26 December 2012 |
Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
K.C. Okoli, P.C., New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Paul Hastings LLP, New York, N.Y. (Allan S. Bloom of counsel), for respondents.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, PLUMMER E. LOTT, and LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JJ.
In an action to recover damages for employment discrimination, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Saitta, J.), dated November 17, 2011, as granted those branches of the defendants' motion which were to have all further depositions in the action conducted at the Supreme Court courthouse under the supervision of a special master or referee at the expense of her attorney, to the extent of directing that all further depositions in the action be conducted at the offices of the defendants' attorney, and be video recorded at the expense of her attorney.
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants.
“The supervision of discovery, and the setting of reasonable terms and conditions for disclosure, are within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court” ( Ito v. Dryvit Sys., 5 A.D.3d 735, 735, 773 N.Y.S.2d 599 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Downing v. Moskovits, 58 A.D.3d 671, 873 N.Y.S.2d 320). “The Supreme Court's discretion is broad because it is familiar with the action before it, and its exercise should not be disturbed on appeal unless it was improvidently exercised” ( Provident Life & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Brittenham, 284 A.D.2d 518, 518, 727 N.Y.S.2d 142;see Wander v. St. John's Univ., 67 A.D.3d 904, 905, 888 N.Y.S.2d 412). Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its broad discretion in directing that all further depositions in this action be held at the offices of the defendants' attorney and be video recorded. The parties' respective submissions on the motion, while conflicting in some respects, both established that the plaintiff's attorney struck the defendants' attorney during a deposition; hence, an evidentiary hearing on the issue was unnecessary ( see generally Matter of Fewell...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Santaliz v. OR FM Assocs.
...Dutch Church v. 198 Broadway, Inc. , 76 N.Y.2d 411, 413 n.1, 559 N.Y.S.2d 866, 559 N.E.2d 429 (1990), Caro v. Marsh USA, Inc. , 101 A.D.3d 1068, 1069, 956 N.Y.S.2d 575 (2nd Dept. 2012), leave to appeal dismissed , 21 N.Y.3d 1068, 974 N.Y.S.2d 314, 997 N.E.2d 139 (2013), Jalor Color Graphics......
-
Schmidt v. Metro. Transp. Auth.
...discretion in supervising disclosure. See Alberto v. Jackson, 118 A.D.3d 733, 987 N.Y.S.2d 218 (2d Dept. 2014); Caro v. Marsh USA, Inc., 101 A.D.3d 1068, 956 N.Y.S.2d 575 (2d Dept. 2012). The determination whether to strike a pleading or to preclude evidence for failure to comply with court......
-
United Airconditioning Corp. v. Axis Piping, Inc.
...Co., LLC, 120 A.D.3d 618, 621, 992 N.Y.S.2d 49 ; Clair v. Fitzgerald, 63 A.D.3d 979, 980, 883 N.Y.S.2d 536 ; cf. Caro v. Marsh USA, Inc., 101 A.D.3d 1068, 1069, 956 N.Y.S.2d 575 ). Contrary to Axis's contention, it failed to demonstrate its entitlement to summary judgment awarding it damage......
-
Kaffl v. Glen Cove Hosp.
...discretion in supervising disclosure. See Alberto v. Jackson, 118 A.D.3d 733, 987 N.Y.S.2d 218 (2d Dept. 2014); Caro v. Marsh USA, Inc., 101 A.D.3d 1068, 956 N.Y.S.2d 575 (2d Dept. 2012). The determination whether to strike a pleading or to preclude evidence for failure to comply with court......